Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

---

If I post a message at your talk page, feel free to make a reply there.
If you post a message at my talk page, I will reply here.

---

Very belated but just want to say you've done a fantastic job on the folk metal article. I tried my hand at rewriting it a long time ago but gave up on wikipedia because of all the obstacles I faced. Looks like you've been able to do what I could not. Well done. --Anarchodin (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Bardin (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bardin. As the recreator of this article, I would like to let you know it has been nominated for deletion, for the second time. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Bardin (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just thinking that you should check out the medieval rock article which you made as a redirect to Mittelalter rock (which you rewrote much of). As you know of the genre better than me, I think you can make this user understand. As it is right now, it is confusing as ever and also to the readers. I would like to see your input in the matter. FireCrystal (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with a view to a disambiguation page, I have posted a draft of the proposed 'medieval folk rock' article. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at it if you have the time, especially the last sub-section, which includes a reference to mittelalter metal and tries to establish distinctions between the genre and other current forms. Thanks. The page is here User:Sabrebd/Sandbox.--Sabrebd (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope to get it posted up over the weekend.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Medieval folk rock, Medieval rock, please see note on discussion page of Mittelalter metal.--Sabrebd (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted support for move - is logical now, solves some problems.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bardin, I just made some minor corrections at folk metal and noticed that the two links to frombelow.dk are dead. You may want to check all the links and replace them with archive.org links if possible. Just wanted to alert you to this problem. Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you got a lot of flak for your changes on the gothic metal article, and I know I've been one of the people to resist them, but I just wanted to let you know that on re-reading it the way it now is, I think you've done a very good job on making the most of the available sources and the best you could to please the purists by inserting hints at the debated status of many bands. You've also argued the case of the gothic rock influence very well. Perhaps I've just grown more relaxed, but it is true that the picture is truly messy and it is extraordinarily difficult to tell what really deserves the moniker gothic metal these days, or even in the past. I've even stood corrected that Draconian is not really gothic metal but (gothic) doom ... turned out I was only familiar with their least doomy album, apparently, namely Turning Season Within. As for Nightwish, though, I don't feel they've ever shaken off their power metal roots, and I can't really see gothic metal influences in them, or not much. The cheese, speed, catchy choruses, "epicness", melodic guitar solos, etc. is still all over the place. It's all just more Evanescence-like these days, as so often. Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the praise. I must admit that the "flak" I received did put me off editing on wikipedia. It just seems so silly to me to fight a losing battle: just like glam metal and nu-metal before, all we can do is sit back and watch the mainstream media tells us that this commercial band or that commercial band is an example of so-and-so metal. As much as fans might want to deny it, goth metal has gone commercial and diluted. That's just the way it is. Nothing we can do about it. --Bardin (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I looked at the history section of the Evanesence page and saw that you added those sources for gothic metal. I agree they are gothic metal but there are people trying to REMOVE it. Can you PLEASE PLEASE help out? Thanks

218.186.12.224 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, sorry but I believe that was my one and only contribution on that page. If my memory serves me right, I only bothered to edit it because some other editor kept bringing up the point that the wikipedia article on the band did not even mention gothic metal. I'll throw in my two cents on the talk page but I'm not going to get involved in any edit war. --Bardin (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my own personal sandbox. Nobody, as far as I know, bothers to even visit it. So why are you accusing me of being aggressive and confrontational on my own personal sandbox? Perhaps your understanding of English is different from mine but I do not see "don't mess with it" as being either aggressive or confrontational. I find your assumption and edit of my sandbox to be both aggressive and confrontational. You could have just left a polite message voicing your concerns on my talk page instead of taking an unilateral action and spouting off accusations of bad behavior. Where's the assumption of good faith? --Bardin (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want the linguistic break down? "Don't" - Contractional variant of "Do not", an imperative command. "Mess [around]", an intransitive verb, is commonly used as a colloquial expression for "creating a disorder"; this automatically implies that you are assuming people will mess around with it. A more neutral, less imperious substitute would be: "Please do not edit my sandbox" - Instead, you chose something that automatically assumes bad faith. You didn't say "please", or "thank you"... you just wanted to seem like the big alpha male who controls a whole sandbox! By the way, you'll never own anything on Wikipedia. You own nothing on Wikipedia. Either be polite and calm or go elsewhere to be controlling, aggressive, and dominant. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, calm down. What is with the tirade? Did you have a bad day or something? I am really astonished at your behavior here. Seriously, what have I done to deserve this? Did I upset you because I voted keep on the last AFD you made? Why are you picking a fight with me? Now I'm trying my best here not to get upset myself and I'm going to try very hard to avoid using any words that might upset you even further. However, I must point out once again that your understanding of English is different from mine. I can sincerely and honestly tell you that I had no intentions whatsoever to come across as either aggressive or confrontational when I wrote those words on a little corner of wikipedia that I thought was supposed to be personal and would unlikely receive any visitors. Those are four common everyday words. "Don't" is something that is used frequently by people all over the world and I see no reason to assume an intent of aggression or confrontation when I come across it. Did you get upset when Bobby McFerrin sang Don't Worry, Be Happy? Or when you come across Don't repeat yourself, Don't be evil, Don't ask, don't tell, Don't Look Now, Don't Stop Believing, Don't Phunk with My Heart, Don't Tell a Soul , etc? Perhaps you should complain to the writers of the wikipedia essays Do not insult the vandals or Don't call a spade a spade? Or the content guideline Do not create hoaxes? As for your comment on the word "mess", you make it seem as if foresight is a bad thing. Vandalism is a frequent occurence here on wikipedia. Is it wrong then for wikipedia to assume that people will create hoaxes?

Now please, calm down. Control your temper. Whatever I have done to make you angry, please let it go. Take a look at the mirror and your own words. You have insulted me by saying that I want to seem like the big alpha male. I find that very offensive. You then taunt me by saying that I'll never own anything on wikipedia, as if I ever wanted to. That sandbox is a personal sandbox, whether you like it or not. Wikipedia itself uses the words "my" and "your" when it refers to user pages and subpages. You end off your message with an ultimatum, a threat that I should behave or get lost. Adding the word "thanks" after that does not make it any less aggressive. Where's the assumption of good faith on your part? Instead of finding out whether I intended to be aggressive or confrontational, you chose to assume that I was being so. What was so difficult of writing a short message on my talk page, something like "hey, bardin, perhaps you might want to tone down that message on your sandbox. It might give the wrong impression." I would have responded with "yeah, I guess, thanks." And all would be well with the world. Instead of writing a polite message on my talk page, you chose to accuse me of being aggressive and confrontational in removing those words yourself from my personal sandbox. I find that action of yours to be both aggressive and confrontational. I hope the irony is not lost on you. So again, where's the assumption of good faith on your part? It really seems to me that I have somehow upset you before this incident and you're just looking for an excuse to have an argument with me. Please tell me that I am wrong. I expect better from you. --Bardin (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very right. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have been so defensive and I sounded immature and petty. You have my sincerest apologies, friend, and I can honestly say I didn't mean anything by it. I shall revert myself and strike my comments. Thanks very much for your insightful words above; I appreciate them wholly. Sorry again, and I hope you have a really good day :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well well. Thanks for the info, Bardin, much appreciated. The user's name very vaguely rings a bell, but I can't recall any specific disputes off the top of my head. Entertaining and telling reading though: "forcing their POV (even if it contradicts common knowledge and logic" which translates as "forcing others to abide by the rules and use sources". The whole common knowledge and logic thing is just laughable, since most of the time this refers to the viewpoints of either fans of a band/genre, or those who hate a band/genre. Ah well. Users can attempt to enforce their point of view and say I'm doing it as much as they wish, I've learned that going against the rules won't get you anywhere. Indeed, the majority if my edits are to music articles and do often regard genres, but this is simply because it seems 90% of the time all the bickering over them is due to people ignoring/not understanding how things work with sources. When one turns to the sources and just reports what they say, it suddenly gets a lot easier, and I'm trying to spread that as much as possible. Thanks again :) Prophaniti (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to work against you at all. That's what wikipedia is about. It's about having any online encyclopedia in which ever one can help each to make it better. No one and I mean no one wants to work against you. But you make if very hard for people to do that. Perhaps you may want to hear what they are saying. Maybe many of those soruces are not right.

Let's just for the heck of it say the New York Times comes out with a headling that says "There is a cure for AIDS." Are we to take that is 100% fact and a good soruce even though ever doctor is saying the New York Times is wrong. Just because the New York Times is a major news paper does not mean it's a reable source on Entertainment and health. All they are doing there is giving any one opinion of one person who is a journalist if you want the real facts about health you would ask a doctor or look to a medlic encyclopedia or a medlic journal. Also some of those sites you use are tabliod sites and are more into posting things that have not been backed up by any one else.

I would love to work with you a lot of people would but you are not making it very easy for us to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing on wikipedia. I have never been blocked even once. So the person who obviously has a problem working with others is not me but you. If you have a problem accepting wikipedia policy, go complain elsewhere. I'm not interested. --Bardin (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude really people want to work with you. They want to debate and come up with ideas with you. That's what the discussions are for. There are many people on here who have tried to work and on different pages such as the Goth Metal page. Yes you did a lot of work on it. But perhaps many of those sources are wrong. Maybe those users that were wanting to talk to you about it were trying to show you the other side of the coin and that working with them would have helped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the problem. There's nothing to "debate". This isn't an online forum and there's really nothing that you can say that would change the fact that the New York Times, Rolling Stones and others are reliable sources. If you want to change wikipedia policy, you can try doing that elsewhere. --Bardin (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Pero Defformero can't be categorized as a folk metal band? Ostalocutanje (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I could not find any reliable sources stating that they are such. The Metal Archives isn't a reliable source since it relies on user submissions. If you know of any reliable sources, feel free to let me know. --Bardin (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Last.fm? http://www.last.fm/music/Pero+Defformero Ostalocutanje (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing there that actually mentions folk metal, only progressive metal with folk (there's a difference). Regardless, last.fm is not a reliable source either because it too relies on content submitted by users. See WP:Reliable sources to get a better idea of the concept. If there is a review inside a magazine or a reliable webzine, that's something we might be able to use. --Bardin (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I removed was vandalism. It contributed nothing to the discussion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It isn't vandalism. Poorly written, yes. Vandalism, no. --Bardin (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check out that page? An ip is trying to insert Ulver into the list based on an article that has so much mistakes I don't think it can be a reliable source even though it's from the NYT. See my comments at the talk page. --Anarchodin (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply over there. --Bardin (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply on my talkYobMod 12:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my response to this: there's no sources to verify your claim about Agalloch being "one of the most influential and popular acts in the genre" Nothing else in the lead is sourced either. It's not really any less refutable than a lot of the other stuff in there - it seems to be generally agreed upon. I mean, it's not like I said that they're the most influential band in the genre which would obviously be impossible to verify. I think it's important to mention the most popular acts of a genre, just like it's important to mention the originators of the genre. bob rulz (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is a summary or overview of the article. Everything in it is already verified in the article's body. --Bardin (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough I suppose...but really there are some things that just don't need to be sourced. I won't push the issue any further since I don't feel that strongly about it. bob rulz (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question on the reliability of Musicmight, and I'm sure that you're the best person to answer it. It seems to me that Musicmight is considered reliable because the owner has released some books by an independent publisher and his staff double checks every content that is added to the database. Is that correct? Now, what if their rhetoric on double checking was nothing more than a facade, and in reality anyone could add anything they wanted. That would make them an unreliable site, right? Evenfiel (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Why would you think that I am the best person to answer it, especially since we have had some strong disagreements as to what a reliable source is? I have no affiliations with MusicMight if that's what you're wondering. I did use the site as a source back when I was actually creating content here on wikipedia and the reason why I considered it to be a reliable source is because the site's contents have been released in books by an independent publisher (Cherry Red). In other words, it fulfils criteria no. 3 of WP:WEB. That was back when it was known as Rockdetector. Is it turning into a wiki now with the relaunch and new name? I have no idea. Your concerns would be best discussed at WP:RSN and not here. I will be travelling overseas tomorrow and won't have time to participate in any immediate discussion about this subject. --Bardin (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to alert you to my comment on Talk:Gothic metal#"it combines the aggression of heavy metal with the dark melancholy aesthetics of gothic rock". Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now what you are trying to do. --Epica124 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bardin, you have received this notice because you have placed your name on the list of members of WikiProject Metal. We are currently looking to make the wikiproject more active, and in doing so, we need to have a list of active members on the wikiproject. If you wish to stay an active part of wikiproject metal, please add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Active Users. Conversely, if you wish to leave the wikiproject, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Members. Thank you.

I have nominated Category:Heavy metal films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Heavy metal music films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Orphaned Land - The Sahara's Storm.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Melechesh - Genies, Sorcerers And Mesopotamian Nights.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Moonspell - Alma Mater.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cradle of Filth - A Gothic Romance.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cruachan - To Invoke The Horned God.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:My Dying Bride - From Darkest Skies.ogg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficiently supported by critical commentary. Deleting this sample won't affect the understanding of the gothic metal genre. Fails contextual significance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

• File:Paradise Lost - Gothic.ogg

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Type O Negative - Paranoid.ogg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Easily conveyed in text, or insufficiently supported by critical commentary. Not contexually significant to gothic metal.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

• File:Tiamat - Whatever That Hearts.ogg

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]